Mendoza (Andres) v. State ( 2014 )

 First, appellant claimed that the procedural bars did not apply
because he filed his petition within one year of the filing of an amended
judgment of conviction on August 6, 2012. 3 Appellant's claim was without
merit. Appellant did not challenge any changes made in the amended
judgment of conviction; rather his claims challenged the original judgment
of conviction. Therefore, the amended judgment of conviction did not
provide good cause to overcome the procedural bars. See Sullivan v. State,
120 Nev. 537, 541, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2004).
Second, appellant appeared to claim that he had good cause
because his counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. Appellant did not
demonstrate good cause because he failed to demonstrate that he
reasonably believed an appeal was pending and that he filed his petition
within a reasonable time of learning no appeal had been taken. See
Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 255, 71 P.3d 503, 508 (2003). Therefore,
the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally
barred. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
3 The amended judgment of conviction awarded appellant an
additional four days of presentence credit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A a
cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge
Andres Hernandez Mendoza
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 423j.